Chapter 4 of 5 · 3971 words · ~20 min read

Part 4

“Quite suddenly the continuous thunder of the anti-aircraft fire ceased. It was succeeded by an uncanny calm, and then by a high-pitched metallic scream which grew in an ear-piercing crescendo. _The R.A.F. aerial destroyers were engaging the lower enemy layers._

“The R.A.F. arrows of the upper air plunged into the very heart of the raiders, streaming fire and lead. They wheeled and turned among them with a swift, purposeful agility.

“RAIN OF BOMBS.

“The hostile formation began to split up, and simultaneously the enemy commander gave by wireless the order to bomb. On the outskirts of London huge factories and houses were suddenly transformed into pillars of white dust. The shriek and thump of the falling bombs was heard clearly in Central London.

“‘It was as if the ground were being torn up under your feet’, said a postman eyewitness. ‘The people in the shelters came out and began to run. They didn’t stop to think; they just ran like wild beasts, trampling on each other, and hitting out at anyone who got in the way, whether man, woman or child.

“‘The rain of bombs was so continuous that for as far as you could see earth and buildings were spouting up in the air with human limbs mixed up in them. The sound of the bombs falling was what knocked people’s nerves up as much as anything.

“‘The gas-bombs didn’t seem so bad, but the incendiary bombs were a nasty sight, at one time it looked as if the whole air had caught fire.’

“According to official information, damage was small. Only the aerial artillery-machines attained an objective of military importance. They completely destroyed the F.E. aircraft factory at Finsbury Park.

“The raiders had timed their attack so as to escape in the dark, and, although the new night detection flood-lights worked well, there is no doubt that the hostile casualties were so few because our fighters were hampered by the darkness.

“According to figures supplied by the Air Department of the War Ministry, 37 hostile machines were brought down while only eighteen of our own aerial destroyers were lost. The three emergency R.A.F. squadrons which first attacked lost 39 machines and had several more severely damaged.

“The raid is regarded by experts as a decisive victory for the British Air-arm and a complete and convincing justification of the policy of the Air-staff. It is pointed out that the raiders were prevented from reaching their objective, and that, apart from the old-type R.A.F. machines, our casualties are smaller than those of the enemy.”

In another part of the same paper was this insignificant paragraph.

“A late Central News message, delayed owing to the disorganization caused by yesterday’s air-raid, states that the hostile formation which made a feint attack on Southampton and was driven off by our machines, later returned to the same place and bombed it continuously for half an hour, causing many casualties and much material damage.”

In the stop-press news was this:

“One a.m. Large hostile formation of aircraft reported approaching mouth of Thames.”

In the above skit I have not dwelt on the terrible side of air-warfare in the future. Yet I feel that that is the side upon which all who are competent to do so, and who wish to prevent future wars should dwell. Several novels have given pictures of future aerial warfare, but I have not seen its inevitable horrors realistically portrayed. Unless those horrors are portrayed frequently and in their true and shocking form, people will soon forget the unpleasant side of air-war and think only of its romantic and glorious side.

In the interests of humanity it would be a good thing if some able novelist or film-producer would give us a statement of the crude horrors of air-war. If such a one arises, he will have the satisfaction of having helped the cause of peace and of having his work banned by the Censor.

VII

So far I have spoken only of heavier-than-air flying-machines. There is also the airship to which many people pin their faith for future long-distance air-transport.

The airship was neglected in England after the War because experience seemed to show that it was incapable of playing a useful part in warfare. Its revival was chiefly due to Commander Burney, who continually drew attention to his conviction that the airship could be made a safe and successful long-distance air-transport vehicle.

Most airship advocates believe in the bigger the better theory. If the gas-capacity of an airship is doubled, the disposable lift may be quadrupled, and the size will be only about 1.3 times that of the smaller vessel. For this reason the two English airships now being built are each of 5,000,000 cu. ft. gas-capacity. One is being built by the Government, the other for the Government to Commander Burney’s general design.

These airships have provided matter for many speeches on Empire air-ship-routes of the future. At the recent Imperial Conference airships were spoken of as the right vessels for long-distance air-lines. These forecasts are based on slender foundations.

Since 1914 only one successful commercial airship-service has been run. The ‘Bodensee’ in 1919 made 103 trips between Berlin and Friedrichshafen and carried 2450 passengers. Those 103 trips seem to be an insecure basis upon which to build calculations about voyages halfway round the world. The new airships may go from England to Egypt in 2½ days, and from England to Melbourne in 12½ days, but nothing has occurred in airship-development to strengthen the probability of such events. The two new airships are nothing more than a gigantic experiment.

I must make some unpleasant remarks about airships, but, before doing so, it is necessary to record admiration of the English airship policy. I do not agree with the man with a genius for mixed metaphor who described the airship scheme as the “thin edge of the white elephant”. On the contrary, in initiating this experiment the Government has shown imagination and daring. Airship enthusiasts are to have an opportunity of testing their theories. If the experiment is a hopeless failure no money and no time will have been wasted, for the knowledge gained will be of value in directing future aeronautical development.

But to the question: Will the airship become the long-distance air vehicle of the future? I answer No.

I base my view on an examination of airship history and on the opinions of airship pilots. Upon that basis the probable future of the 5,000,000 cu. ft. vessels will be this:

The first one to be completed will make a first flight, and come to its 200 ft. mooring mast successfully. For several months it will cruise periodically, and minor structural modifications will be made. It will fly to India and back. Paying passengers will be accepted, and after considerable delay the first long-distance passenger-flight will be flown. Some two or three years after the airship comes from its shed, it will meet with disaster.

More airships will be designed and built, larger still than those now building. There will be another disaster.

By then the heavier-than-air machine in the moving-wing and fixed-wing forms, will have proved itself capable of doing all that airships can do and doing it more safely, more quickly, more regularly, and more cheaply. The airship will gradually disappear, and its place will be taken by the heavier-than-air craft, as the balloon is gradually disappearing and its place being taken by the airship.

There is only one major difference between balloon and airship, a difference in the amount of control exercised by the airman. The same difference exists between airship and aeroplane. The aeroplane is the more controllable. It can rise and descend with less preliminary juggling; it can turn more quickly; and it can land more quickly.

In support of my pessimistic forecast I append a brief outline of air-ship-history.

Lighter-than-air man-carrying flight started in 1783 when Pilâtre de Rozier, the world’s first aeronaut, went up in a Montgolfier balloon. In the same year a hydrogen filled balloon flew from Paris to Nesle. In the following year an oblong balloon propelled by parasols as oars was made by the Duc de Chartres.

In 1852 a small airship propelled by a steam engine was made. In 1882 Tissandier’s airship worked by an electric motor was flown, and in 1884 the airship ‘La France’ was flown. Count Zeppelin built his first airship in 1900. Santos Dumont constructed an airship, and, in 1902, flew it round the Eiffel Tower.

It will be seen that the airship has passed through a longer period of development than the heavier-than-air flying-machine, even if the claim that Clement Ader flew in 1897 be accepted. Lighter-than-air flight, indeed, dates back to 1783.

The result of that longer development period is not such as to warrant too sanguine a belief in the airship’s future. The accidents to non-rigids and rigids have been many in proportion to the number of vessels actually flown.

The last type of non-rigid built in England was the North Sea type, one of which was destroyed by lightning soon after the War. Nine people were killed. Among the rigids, R.34, which made the double Atlantic crossing, was damaged beyond repair in 1921. R.33 has had many adventures, among them being her break-away from the mooring-mast in 1925. This was hailed as a proof of the safety of airships. R.33 is still alive, though she is treated with the respect due to her age.

R.36, the first British airship to be adapted for commercial purposes, is still in existence though not in service. R.38 broke up over the Humber in 1921 and forty-four people were killed.

The U.S.A. have the ‘Los Angeles’, which is the name now given to the German designed and built ZR.3. The ‘Shenandoah’ broke away from her mast in 1924, and was destroyed in 1926. According to survivors’ stories, the ‘Shenandoah’ was wrecked by the same kind of vertical air-currents that wrecked an early Zeppelin in 1913. In all, nine American airships have perished violently since the War.

The French ‘Dixmude’ was the ex-Zeppelin L.72. She created a world’s record in 1923, and then disappeared off Sicily with all hands (54 people).

Considering how few large airships have been built, and how short a time they are, on the average, kept in service, the proportion of serious accidents is high. In war that proportion is prohibitively high.

The Zeppelin works have turned out more rigid airships than any factory in the world. The fate of every Zeppelin airship completed since 1915 was recently given in a French technical paper. I do not vouch for the figures, but they come from a fairly reliable source. Out of 76 airships no fewer than 37 (or nearly 50%) were put out of service before they had completed one year’s work. Only four airships were kept in service for more than three years. This is the record of the firm which knows more about airships than any other firm in the world. Yet airships have had longer to develop than aeroplanes.

How can an airship be said to be superior to a fixed-wing aeroplane? It can hover, it has a longer range, it provides a higher degree of comfort for its passengers. How is it inferior to a fixed-wing aeroplane? It is slower, it requires more elaborate ground organization, it is less controllable. Since the moving-wing aircraft is, as yet, far from fully developed, I leave it out of discussion.

The argument that an aeroplane is always using a part of its power for lifting is counterbalanced by the argument that an airship is always using a part of its power for driving its bulk against the wind. An airship cannot stand still and use no power. There is always some wind at a height, and the airship must either use power or drift. An airship with all its engines stopped is as helpless as an aeroplane with all its engines stopped. The aeroplane, while gliding, still retains a large measure of controllability, and the pilot can select its landing ground within 50 yards. The airship has less controllability when its engines are stopped. Its commander would be lucky if he could select its landing ground within 50 miles.

It is right that the airship should have every chance to develop. If it prove successful, so much the better. I do not think it will prove successful. If it is made to work, it will be at more than ten times the cost in money and lives, at which heavier-than-air machines have been made to work.

Sometimes it seems regrettable that even a small part of the sums spent on developing airships cannot be spent on developing the passenger-carrying aeroplane.

I will give airships the last word by recalling that Sir George Cayley in 1816 expressed his belief that airships would eventually prove the most efficient and safest means of air travel, and by quoting Dr Eckener:

“A modern airship”, said Dr Eckener, “is at least as capable in heavy weather as a modern aeroplane. A storm will never have more effect than delaying or speeding a trip, and it can become directly dangerous only inasmuch as it may delay the voyage beyond the reach of fuel supply.”

VIII

“_Sans nul doute, l’avenir est a la bête de métal._” People regret the age of the machine: I cannot do so. A well-made machine, in which are struck into life the dreams of its designer, is a vital, individual creation.

A flying machine designed by a man with a sense of flight is more faithful and far more intelligent than a horse or a dog. Thoughts are reflected in it, the careful skill of the executant is expressed in its every component. It is sensitive and quick to feel roughness or gentleness in the hand of him who controls it. Its moods are without number, and it can surprise, please, and irritate. It is susceptible to being coaxed, and it enjoys obeying one whose orders are firmly given. But it can be treacherous to the weak or to one who does not try to understand it or who is persistently cruel to it.

At present there is a tendency to knock the life out of the machine, to subdue it to the level of tooth paste and tin cans. If that tendency makes headway, the flying-machine of the future must lose its individuality, and the age of the machine may eventually prove to be a dark age.

_FROM THE REVIEWS_

_Times Literary Supplement_: “An entertaining series of vivacious and stimulating studies of modern tendencies.”

_Spectator_: “Scintillating monographs ... that very lively and courageous series.”

_Observer_: “There seems no reason why the brilliant To-day and To-morrow Series should come to an end for a century of to-morrows. At first it seemed impossible for the publishers to keep up the sport through a dozen volumes, but the series already runs to more than two score. A remarkable series....”

_Daily Telegraph_: “This admirable series of essays, provocative and brilliant.”

_Nation_: “We are able to peer into the future by means of that brilliant series [which] will constitute a precious document upon the present time.”—_T. S. Eliot._

_Manchester Dispatch_: “The more one reads of these pamphlets, the more avid becomes the appetite. We hope the list is endless.”

_Irish Statesman_: “Full of lively controversy.”

_Daily Herald_: “This series has given us many monographs of brilliance and discernment.... The stylistic excellencies of this provocative series.”

_Field_: “We have long desired to express the deep admiration felt by every thinking scholar and worker at the present day for this series. We must pay tribute to the high standard of thought and expression they maintain. As small gift-books, austerely yet prettily produced, they remain unequalled of their kind. We can give but the briefest suggestions of their value to the student, the politician, and the voter....”

_New York World_: “Holds the palm in the speculative and interpretative thought of the age.”

_VOLUMES READY_

=Daedalus=, or Science and the Future. By J. B. S. HALDANE, Reader in Biochemistry, University of Cambridge. _Seventh impression._

“A fascinating and daring little book.”—_Westminster Gazette._ “The essay is brilliant, sparkling with wit and bristling with challenges.”—_British Medical Journal._ “Predicts the most startling changes.”—_Morning Post._

=Callinicus=, a Defence of Chemical Warfare. By J. B. S. HALDANE. _Second impression._

“Mr Haldane’s brilliant study.”—_Times Leading Article._ “A book to be read by every intelligent adult.”—_Spectator._ “This brilliant little monograph.”—_Daily News._

=Icarus=, or the Future of Science. By BERTRAND RUSSELL, F.R.S. _Fourth impression._

“Utter pessimism.”—_Observer._ “Mr Russell refuses to believe that the progress of Science must be a boon to mankind.”—_Morning Post._ “A stimulating book, that leaves one not at all discouraged.”—_Daily Herald._

=What I Believe.= By BERTRAND RUSSELL, F.R.S. _Third impression._

“One of the most brilliant and thought-stimulating little books I have read—a better book even than _Icarus_.”—_Nation._ “Simply and brilliantly written.”—_Nature._ “In stabbing sentences he punctures the bubble of cruelty, envy, narrowness, and ill-will which those in authority call their morals.”—_New Leader._

=Tantalus=, or the Future of Man. By F. C. S. SCHILLER, D.SC., Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. _Second impression._

“They are all (_Daedalus_, _Icarus_, and _Tantalus_) brilliantly clever, and they supplement or correct one another.”—_Dean Inge_, in _Morning Post_. “Immensely valuable and infinitely readable.”—_Daily News._ “The book of the week.”—_Spectator._

=Cassandra=, or the Future of the British Empire. By F. C. S. SCHILLER, D.SC.

“We commend it to the complacent of all parties.”—_Saturday Review._ “The book is small, but very, very weighty; brilliantly written, it ought to be read by all shades of politicians and students of politics.”—_Yorkshire Post._ “Yet another addition to that bright constellation of pamphlets.”—_Spectator._

=Quo Vadimus?= Glimpses of the Future. By E. E. FOURNIER D’ALBE, D.SC. _Second Impression._

“A wonderful vision of the future. A book that will be talked about.”—_Daily Graphic._ “A remarkable contribution to a remarkable series.”—_Manchester Dispatch._ “Interesting and singularly plausible.”—_Daily Telegraph._

=Thrasymachus=, the Future of Morals. By C. E. M. JOAD, author of “The Babbitt Warren,” etc. _Second impression._

“His provocative book.”—_Graphic._ “Written in a style of deliberate brilliance.”—_Times Literary Supplement._ “As outspoken and unequivocal a contribution as could well be imagined. Even those readers who dissent will be forced to recognize the admirable clarity with which he states his case. A book that will startle.”—_Daily Chronicle._

=Lysistrata=, or Woman’s Future and Future Woman. By ANTHONY M. LUDOVICI, author of “A Defence of Aristocracy,” etc. _Second Impression._

“A stimulating book. Volumes would be needed to deal, in the fullness his work provokes, with all the problems raised.”—_Sunday Times._ “Pro-feminine but anti-feministic.”—_Scotsman._ “Full of brilliant common-sense.”—_Observer._

=Hypatia=, or Woman and Knowledge. By MRS BERTRAND RUSSELL. With a frontispiece. _Third impression._

An answer to _Lysistrata_. “A passionate vindication of the rights of woman.”—_Manchester Guardian._ “Says a number of things that sensible women have been wanting publicly said for a long time.”—_Daily Herald._

=Hephaestus=, the Soul of the Machine. By E. E. FOURNIER D’ALBE, D.SC.

“A worthy contribution to this interesting series. A delightful and thought-provoking essay.”—_Birmingham Post._ “There is a special pleasure in meeting with a book like _Hephaestus_. The author has the merit of really understanding what he is talking about.”—_Engineering._ “An exceedingly clever defence of machinery.”—_Architects’ Journal._

=The Passing of the Phantoms=: a Study of Evolutionary Psychology and Morals. By C. J. PATTEN, Professor of Anatomy, Sheffield University. With 4 Plates.

“Readers of _Daedalus_, _Icarus_ and _Tantalus_, will be grateful for an excellent presentation of yet another point of view.”—_Yorkshire Post._ “This bright and bracing little book.”—_Literary Guide._ “Interesting and original.”—_Medical Times._

=The Mongol in our Midst=: a Study of Man and his Three Faces. By F. G. CROOKSHANK, M.D., F.R.C.P. With 28 Plates. _Second Edition, revised._

“A brilliant piece of speculative induction.”—_Saturday Review._ “An extremely interesting and suggestive book, which will reward careful reading.”—_Sunday Times._ “The pictures carry fearful conviction.”—_Daily Herald._

=The Conquest of Cancer.= By H. W. S. WRIGHT, M.S., F.R.C.S. Introduction by F. G. CROOKSHANK, M.D.

“Eminently suitable for general reading. The problem is fairly and lucidly presented. One merit of Mr Wright’s plan is that he tells people what, in his judgment, they can best do, _here and now_.”—From the _Introduction_.

=Pygmalion=, or the Doctor of the Future. By R. MCNAIR WILSON, M.B.

“Dr Wilson has added a brilliant essay to this series.”—_Times Literary Supplement._ “This is a very little book, but there is much wisdom in it.”—_Evening Standard._ “No doctor worth his salt would venture to say that Dr Wilson was wrong.”—_Daily Herald._

=Prometheus=, or Biology and the Advancement of Man. By H. S. JENNINGS, Professor of Zoology, Johns Hopkins University. _Second Impression._

“This volume is one of the most remarkable that has yet appeared in this series. Certainly the information it contains will be new to most educated laymen. It is essentially a discussion of ... heredity and environment, and it clearly establishes the fact that the current use of these terms has no scientific justification.”—_Times Literary Supplement._ “An exceedingly brilliant book.”—_New Leader._

=Narcissus=: an Anatomy of Clothes. By GERALD HEARD. With 19 illustrations.

“A most suggestive book.”—_Nation._ “Irresistible. Reading it is like a switchback journey. Starting from prehistoric times we rocket down the ages.”—_Daily News._ “Interesting, provocative, and entertaining.”—_Queen._

=Thamyris=, or Is There a Future for Poetry? By R. C. TREVELYAN.

“Learned, sensible, and very well-written.”—_Affable Hawk_, in _New Statesman_. “Very suggestive.”—_J. C. Squire_, in _Observer_. “A very charming piece of work, I agree with all, or at any rate, almost all its conclusions.”—_J. St Loe Strachey_, in _Spectator_.

=Proteus=, or the Future of Intelligence. By VERNON LEE, author of “Satan the Waster,” etc.

“We should like to follow the author’s suggestions as to the effect of intelligence on the future of Ethics, Aesthetics, and Manners. Her book is profoundly stimulating and should be read by everyone.”—_Outlook._ “A concise, suggestive piece of work.”—_Saturday Review._

=Timotheus=, the Future of the Theatre. By BONAMY DOBRÉE, author of “Restoration Drama,” etc.

“A witty, mischievous little book, to be read with delight.”—_Times Literary Supplement._ “This is a delightfully witty book.”—_Scotsman._ “In a subtly satirical vein he visualizes various kinds of theatres in 200 years’ time. His gay little book makes delightful reading.”—_Nation._

=Paris=, or the Future of War. By Captain B. H. LIDDELL HART.

“A companion volume to _Callinicus_. A gem of close thinking and deduction.”—_Observer._ “A noteworthy contribution to a problem of concern to every citizen in this country.”—_Daily Chronicle._ “There is some lively thinking about the future of war in Paris, just added to this set of live-wire pamphlets on big subjects.”—_Manchester Guardian._

=Wireless Possibilities.= By Professor A. M. LOW. With 4 diagrams.